I am all for feminine dress. In fact, I prefer, when I have the appropriate pieces in my wardrobe, to wear dresses most of the time. As I learned after taking a challenge issued by the writer of an article at Ladies Against Feminism, I feel different in a skirt or dress. (And not just any skirt or dress. A long, flowy one is just different from shorter or straighter ones. I have nothing against the others, but they don’t evoke the same sense in me when I wear them.)
But preferring feminine dress is not the same thing as mandating a particular dress code, and there are those who would assert that every Christian woman should wear dresses of a particular length, every day, with no exceptions. I find this rather legalistic, as God has not laid down this law. (Principles of modesty should, of course, be applied at all times, but biblical guidelines of modesty are not nearly as restrictive as some would like us to believe.) There are two common assertions that I have to really wonder about. I would challenge anyone who falls into this camp to seriously consider these two areas and whether their own thinking is truly reasonable, in light of Scripture.
First, I hear it stated that, in the Bible, only men are said to have worn pants. This is misleading. As far as I am aware (I am open to correction here), the only people in the Bible who were said to have “worn pants” were actually the priests. The reference given is to the place where the priests were instructed to wear linen breeches under their robes so their nakedness would not be exposed when they climbed the steps to the altar. Two points to consider here: Number one, while it is true that the priests were men, there is no indication that all men wore these breeches. Or, for that matter, that anyone else in particular (male or female) did not wear breeches. Number two, these were undergarments. So if we were to draw any conclusion from this passage about who should wear what, and who should be forbidden from wearing what, the logical end conclusion ought to be that only priests should wear underwear. I am not saying that this conclusion is correct! But if we follow this line of thinking to its logical end, it is the conclusion we reach.
Second, I hear that it should be obvious that women should not wear pants, because it is obvious that men should not wear dresses. As much as I hate to employ the “cultural” argument, because it is easily abused, this is an area where I believe that culture does come into play. In this country, when women first began wearing pants they were, indeed, considered men’s clothing, and it was scandalous for women to wear them. In that cultural setting, I believe it was inappropriate for women to wear them (apart from unusual circumstances where safety may have been a deciding factor). At this point in time, however, pants are considered perfectly appropriate, feminine clothing.
For those who question the cultural argument, and believe that it is fundamentally obvious that pants are for men and skirts are for women, consider the following: during the biblical culture, what did men wear? Not pants. They wore robes. (I understand that there were distinctions between men’s robes and women’s robes, but they were both dress-like garments.) What about Scottish kilts? Are we to believe that an entire centuries-old culture is effeminate because their men wear something that bears greater resemblance to our skirts than pants in style? Some of their manliest men wear those garments! The Scottish culture recognizes the kilt as a masculine piece of clothing. Clothing is, by nature, a cultural concept. Modesty does not change, but what is considered feminine or masculine varies greatly by culture. And again, if we were to abide strictly by biblical example, none of us would be wearing pants; we would all – men and women – be wearing robes.
So there you have it. I believe that “women must wear only dresses” is an illogical conclusion to draw from Scripture, and this is why.
(reading chronologically)
